OK... I agree that 'some things' SHOULD be taken seriously, but that one shouldn't automatically see that John is evil right off the bat.
Scott, I wouldn't expect you to be sympathize with Basque terrorits (or freedom fighters depending which way you are looking at it from) just because you went hiking there. But imagine if you had gone there to study their culture and had already prepared yourself beforehand studying... and finally went there and were predisposed to take in their point of view... and who knows, really sympathize with them. I believe that that is pretty much what happened with John.
I DO NOT support John for being a Taliban/Al-Qeda militant... but I cannot also blame him for believing in something so firmly that he was willing to die (or at least fight) for it.
ac2c... why do you say he decided to be a traitor? Did he actually go to Afganistan to train to be a terrorist so as to strike back at his motherland? Im not saying that I exclude this, but do you really think this was his intention? Or did he get caught up in somthing that overwhelmed him and is convineint for us to call 'traitorous' for. He went to Yemen to study... and got caught up in something that anyone at his age could easily fall into.
Americans are brought up (brain-washed) to love and think that the USA is bar-none the best and number one in everything... and when reality is not that way sometimes, Americans will just pretend not to hear. I know... thats how I was brought up by the 'system' and managed to shake it off by being away from it for a while now. Maybe John was already skeptic of the USA and by going in Yemen and Pakistan his personal views got twisted into something more sinister and resulted into him becoming a fighter.
Was his anger a result of American policy towards a culture he loved or was it just him who is/was meesed up/brain washed... or a bit of both?
No I don't think that he went there to become a terrorist. I think he went there with all good intentions. He did, however, make the choice to train as a terrorist after he was there. Did he expect to be pitted against the US when he did this? Probably not.. He did make the choice. After attending terrorist training, where rhetoric and specific training against the US is a daily thing. He made the choice to continue to train. When the terrorist and Afghanistan came under attack he continued to serve in a combat unit knowing that it was America behind the attack and that there was a possibility that he would meet American soldiers in combat. He made the choice to stay. When he was captured and given the opportunity to talk to the CIA, he made the choice to refuse. The possibility is that he knew of the plan to attack the guards and revolt. If he did, he chose not to tell the CIA agent about it. This resulted directly in the death of that agent and many deaths on both sides. (I am not saying that he did know, but the possibility is high that he did.) All of these choices were directed to denying America, helping others to attack America and personally takeing up arms against America. Those are choices that he made to BE a traitor. The choice has consequences and he will be held responsible. If he had been older with more experience he may not have made the same decisions. But he is not, he did not and he will now learn that yes he will be held responsible.
Here's the way I see John's issue here. My Dad brought up the point that we haven't declared war on the Taliban formally...we haven't declared formal war since 1941. So technically Vietnam and Korea, etc. were not official wars.
This guy can be tried for treason if he "adhered to an enemy" of the United States. The Taliban is a very clear enemy of the United States, and, I think it will be quickly discovered that John did adhere to the Taliban recently.
However, John could make the point that he did not know the US was an enemy of the Taliban until it was too late and the US was landing ground troops. It would be very easy for him to say that he was not able to defect or leave the Taliban army without getting shot by the Talibanis when he left or getting shot by the Northern Alliance when he said he was a defecting Talibani. If he makes this point and proves it, along with the fact that he did not partake an active role in the prisoner uprising, I believe he should be let off from treason.
I kind of doubt John will announce that he wasn't able to defect easily. He was shown on a video clip tonight being questioned by American CIA agent Spann before the uprising occured and Spann was killed. It could be said that at the point of being questioned, John could have announced he was American and wished to defect because he wasn't able to safely before. But he didn't, and instead remained silent.
So either:
A. John claims he had no chance to defect and somehow video clip does not apply, and John was just hiding with his hands over his head while he waited for a Marine to get him out of there.
B. John was insane, phsycologists back him up.
C. He admits to having sided with the Taliban--a US enemy, and made no attempt to defect when he had the chance after realizing he could be commiting treason.
So now we just wait and see how it all goes in court. There is no way this guy should be denied good lawyers and fair court, for all we know he got lost in Afghanistan and was gagged by Al Quaeda, drugged and brainwashed.
well said ac2c and MacAddict. I think that what you said is a more level headed approach rather than the initial, knee jerk "he has to die, traitorous pig" approach that was taken by some.
He joined the Taliban and decided to fight with them when the Northern Alliance was the only enemy around. As far as he saw, during the whole conflict, he only faught against Northern Alliance troops... never a single American. He was, on the other hand, being bombed by B-52s and never, even if he wanted to, have the opportunity to fight our own troops. Doesnt the fact that Taliban troops reported getting shot at by Al-Qaeda regulars for even thinking of giving up have a factor in this? He didnt seem to have many options whether he wanted to fight or not.
He may have never appealed for pardon or sympathised with the USA... but its al,ost sure as hell true that he never actually faught against American forces.
Its useless to argue with Scott H becasue he will never ever change his opinion. We all have out opinions and there is nothing that can be done about that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That WSJ article that Scott quoted described this father-son exchange:
[quote]... Mr. Lindh was upset that the American sailors killed in the terrorist bombing of the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden were the same age as John. John e-mailed him back that the terrorist bombing was justified... <hr></blockquote>
This isn't a matter of differing opinions or jumping to conclusions. According to the guy's father he thought that the bombing of the Cole was justified. The burden of proof rests heavily on the other side of this argument. I don't care if he was only getting one point of view. You inadvertently slander Islam by saying he thought only of Islam and the beauty of it. A death pyre in south Manhattan has something to do with the beauty of Islam?
This guy was not Taliban he was Al Qaeda. He fought in Kashmere as well as Afghanistan. So he didn't join up just to fight the NA.
Why do people try to marginalize this guys involvement? He trained in Al Qaeda, he fought in Kashmere, he fought in Afghanistan and then he was right there when the CIA guy got killed. They later found him with and ak47 in his hands. He's deeply involved in all of these things through his own free will. ?Youthful indiscretion? cannot be used to excuse all that.
You're right that he can't make his excuse that he was young and just got caught up in things he didn't know about. It looks pretty clear that he knew what he was doing. Still, it needs to be investigated first.
Interesting. I hope none of this "aid" he's giving is getting in the way of his prosecution. Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law. No doubt he'll claim he was denied his rights.
1) We're going to bring this punk back home and throw him in a federal "prison"
2) Celebrity liberals will protest and whine and whine and whine for his released. Campuses across the nation will feature even more whining for those of John Walker's ilk.
3) He will finally be released without a scratch and having served less time than a jaywalker.
4) These cause-head douchebag fundies and most Europeans will continue to act as if the U.S. is the rapist of the world.
And Zo, don't make me ****ing laugh with your assertion that you aren't quick to label things. You see the letters "US" together in capitals and you start looking for evil like some backward McCarthyist.
A. John claims he had no chance to defect and somehow video clip does not apply, and John was just hiding with his hands over his head while he waited for a Marine to get him out of there.
B. John was insane, phsycologists back him up.
C. He admits to having sided with the Taliban--a US enemy, and made no attempt to defect when he had the chance after realizing he could be commiting treason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't forget:
D. The book/movie deal... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
It is a wild stretch to consider that his motivation to go to Afghanistan and join the Taliban could be regarded as treason since the Taliban has never been considered an enemy of the US until 9-11. His treasonous status came about by the actions of others.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
It is a wild stretch to consider that his motivation to go to Afghanistan and join the Taliban could be regarded as treason since the Taliban has never been considered an enemy of the US until 9-11. His treasonous status came about by the actions of others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was wondering Samantha: are you married? You sound like you wouldn't expect much from a man. He could cheat on you in your own bed and you would pretend to not see it.
JWL was captured with Taliban fighters. It's probable that there were al Qaeda present as well. Al Qaeda was involved in the killing of Americans prior to 9-11. He even told his father that the attack on the Cole was justified. And after 9-11 the Taliban clearly took al Qaeda's side against us. JWL didn't have a problem with this. He wasn't caught until a couple of months later. His treasonous status came about by his own actions.
[quote]It is a wild stretch to consider that his motivation to go to Afghanistan and join the Taliban could be regarded as treason since the Taliban has never been considered an enemy of the US until 9-11. His treasonous status came about by the actions of others.<hr></blockquote>
The Taliban has never been on friendly terms with the United States. We have been pushing them to extradite bin Laden for years and we never recognized them as the official government of Afghanistan.
Also, he trained with Al Qaeda in Al Qaeda camps, which has been an enemy of the U.S. since the mid-1990s (if not earlier). Al Qaeda was responsible for over 30 American soldiers' deaths before 9/11.
If I were to go train with Hamas, would it be illogical to consider me an enemy to Israel?
[quote]The Taliban has never been on friendly terms with the United States.<hr></blockquote>
I said in my post that the Taliban had not been considered an enemy of the United States until 9-11. There is a very discernible difference between "an enemy" and being "not on friendly terms". Naturally we haven't been on overtly "friendly terms" as that would have been very bad PR; tactful silence was more the policy. About the only unfriendly gesture exhibited by the U.S. towards the Taliban prior to 9-11 was not to recognize their "government" (!) and not to staff the US embassy in Kabul. Also, there has been barely a peep from either the Clinton or Bush administrations re. the horrendous human rights abuses and the treatment of women in Afghanistan; awareness of this ghastly situation was raised mostly on internet newsletters and mass mailings. The official comment right up until 9-11 has always been 'no comment'. But human rights issues overseas has never been a concern of ours, that is what makes this current media hoopla and crocodile-tears exhibition of phoney human rights concerns such an outright farce. Then there is that issue of that $43 million for opium eradication (and that is not some fairytale conceived by Robert Scheer and trendy liberals; that deal was brokered via the U.N., with U.S. approval). Then there is the wholesale arming and funding of Islamic extremists via the CIA ($$billions) out of which the Taliban emerged. I have never said that the U.S. has been on "best buddies" terms with the Taliban...but an enemy? That is a big stretch.
[quote]We have been pushing them to extradite bin Laden for years and we never recognized them as the official government of Afghanistan.<hr></blockquote>
When the U.S. has a small but pesky enemy, or an enemy hosted by a 'rogue' nation, a common response of ours is to go in with bombs and air raids and (try to) nip it in the bud, such as what happened with Libya, or Granada, or Panama, etc. Extradition? puhhlease! Soft-soaping hardened terrorists is not the way the U.S. goes about its business. If al Qaeda was considered that great an enemy then there would have been a concerted effort to eradicate them. The Clinton administration had ample opportunity to get bin Laden, specially in Sudan, and they either blew it, or weren't that bothered.
[quote]Also, he trained with Al Qaeda in Al Qaeda camps, which has been an enemy of the U.S. since the mid-1990s (if not earlier).<hr></blockquote>
Many of those camps are in Saudi Arabia as well as Afghanistan. Bin Laden's greatest support comes from that nation, both financially and in personnel. Perhaps we are we more concerned with not offending the corrupt Saudi monarchy than in protecting the U.S people against further attacks?
[quote]Al Qaeda was responsible for over 30 American soldiers' deaths before 9/11. If I were to go train with Hamas, would it be illogical to consider me an enemy to Israel?<hr></blockquote>
Yes absolutely. It is all so uncomfortably inconsistent. Where was the response to the Cole attacks? Was that not also an unwarranted attack on American lives and property, an act of war?
[quote]I was wondering Samantha: are you married? You sound like you wouldn't expect much from a man. He could cheat on you in your own bed and you would pretend to not see it.<hr></blockquote>
Whether or not I am married is irrelevant to the topic.
In a relationship, I very much appreciate being appreciated, but I don't expect anything from a man; expectation is a prison with very high walls, surrounded by minefields and armed guards. When a man in my life does something positive/good/ worthwhile, more especially when unexpected then that is when some magic and sparkle is allowed to escape the bonds of routine, (or expectation).
Re. men in world affairs, I cannot help but have expectations; my pragmatism and cynicism have tainted me. The nature of people who get into positions of power and leadership, and their corruptability is little to be optimistic about.It is mostly men who assume positions of power in politics and government, and most of them make a dog's dinner of it. If there were more balance between the yang/yin, masculine/feminine, etc in running the world, and less prevalence of machismo yahooism, and patriarchy...maybe there would be less opportunity for the likes of bin Laden (and a multitude of other rogues) to get where they are.
I have nothing against men, (far from it!) but I do have issues with men who behave like jerks, and foul things up for all.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong> Yes absolutely. It is all so uncomfortably inconsistent. Where was the response to the Cole attacks? Was that not also an unwarranted attack on American lives and property, an act of war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Samantha,
I only quote your last line as it is similar to the rest of your post. Why did we not respond before to other attacks? Why The inconsistancy? I think a somewaht simplistic view is that they happened under a different administration. For example, the USS Cole happened under Clinton. No response there because the man was too busy trying to cover his own butt than to protect those of his military. The times and administration have changed. Also, the American people sadly did not see the overseas attacks to our military as a "real" thing. Sure, a few soldiers died, they knew they could when they signed up. Sad view, an dit really angered me then as it does now. But when NYC and the WTC are destroyed that is MUCH closer to home. Now that the citizens are riled the administration in power has license to grow a spine. About time they did, if only they had earlier...
Comments
Scott, I wouldn't expect you to be sympathize with Basque terrorits (or freedom fighters depending which way you are looking at it from) just because you went hiking there. But imagine if you had gone there to study their culture and had already prepared yourself beforehand studying... and finally went there and were predisposed to take in their point of view... and who knows, really sympathize with them. I believe that that is pretty much what happened with John.
I DO NOT support John for being a Taliban/Al-Qeda militant... but I cannot also blame him for believing in something so firmly that he was willing to die (or at least fight) for it.
ac2c... why do you say he decided to be a traitor? Did he actually go to Afganistan to train to be a terrorist so as to strike back at his motherland? Im not saying that I exclude this, but do you really think this was his intention? Or did he get caught up in somthing that overwhelmed him and is convineint for us to call 'traitorous' for. He went to Yemen to study... and got caught up in something that anyone at his age could easily fall into.
Americans are brought up (brain-washed) to love and think that the USA is bar-none the best and number one in everything... and when reality is not that way sometimes, Americans will just pretend not to hear. I know... thats how I was brought up by the 'system' and managed to shake it off by being away from it for a while now. Maybe John was already skeptic of the USA and by going in Yemen and Pakistan his personal views got twisted into something more sinister and resulted into him becoming a fighter.
Was his anger a result of American policy towards a culture he loved or was it just him who is/was meesed up/brain washed... or a bit of both?
Time will tell.
Here's the way I see John's issue here. My Dad brought up the point that we haven't declared war on the Taliban formally...we haven't declared formal war since 1941. So technically Vietnam and Korea, etc. were not official wars.
This guy can be tried for treason if he "adhered to an enemy" of the United States. The Taliban is a very clear enemy of the United States, and, I think it will be quickly discovered that John did adhere to the Taliban recently.
However, John could make the point that he did not know the US was an enemy of the Taliban until it was too late and the US was landing ground troops. It would be very easy for him to say that he was not able to defect or leave the Taliban army without getting shot by the Talibanis when he left or getting shot by the Northern Alliance when he said he was a defecting Talibani. If he makes this point and proves it, along with the fact that he did not partake an active role in the prisoner uprising, I believe he should be let off from treason.
I kind of doubt John will announce that he wasn't able to defect easily. He was shown on a video clip tonight being questioned by American CIA agent Spann before the uprising occured and Spann was killed. It could be said that at the point of being questioned, John could have announced he was American and wished to defect because he wasn't able to safely before. But he didn't, and instead remained silent.
So either:
A. John claims he had no chance to defect and somehow video clip does not apply, and John was just hiding with his hands over his head while he waited for a Marine to get him out of there.
B. John was insane, phsycologists back him up.
C. He admits to having sided with the Taliban--a US enemy, and made no attempt to defect when he had the chance after realizing he could be commiting treason.
So now we just wait and see how it all goes in court. There is no way this guy should be denied good lawyers and fair court, for all we know he got lost in Afghanistan and was gagged by Al Quaeda, drugged and brainwashed.
He can be executed live on CNN. That way, the coming generation can see that treason IS a crime and that it will not be tolerated.
The United States has enemies out there, after Sept 11, everyone (except people in parts of CA) knows that.
If'n you ain't with us, you agin' us. Case closed. He's lost his citizenship as a result of his actions. Turn the Military Tribunal Crank and wax him.
You liberals make the absurdly simple so masturbulatoraly complicated....
Aries 1B
He joined the Taliban and decided to fight with them when the Northern Alliance was the only enemy around. As far as he saw, during the whole conflict, he only faught against Northern Alliance troops... never a single American. He was, on the other hand, being bombed by B-52s and never, even if he wanted to, have the opportunity to fight our own troops. Doesnt the fact that Taliban troops reported getting shot at by Al-Qaeda regulars for even thinking of giving up have a factor in this? He didnt seem to have many options whether he wanted to fight or not.
He may have never appealed for pardon or sympathised with the USA... but its al,ost sure as hell true that he never actually faught against American forces.
Or am I totally off? What do you think?
<strong>
Its useless to argue with Scott H becasue he will never ever change his opinion. We all have out opinions and there is nothing that can be done about that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That WSJ article that Scott quoted described this father-son exchange:
[quote]... Mr. Lindh was upset that the American sailors killed in the terrorist bombing of the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden were the same age as John. John e-mailed him back that the terrorist bombing was justified... <hr></blockquote>
This isn't a matter of differing opinions or jumping to conclusions. According to the guy's father he thought that the bombing of the Cole was justified. The burden of proof rests heavily on the other side of this argument. I don't care if he was only getting one point of view. You inadvertently slander Islam by saying he thought only of Islam and the beauty of it. A death pyre in south Manhattan has something to do with the beauty of Islam?
[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
Why do people try to marginalize this guys involvement? He trained in Al Qaeda, he fought in Kashmere, he fought in Afghanistan and then he was right there when the CIA guy got killed. They later found him with and ak47 in his hands. He's deeply involved in all of these things through his own free will. ?Youthful indiscretion? cannot be used to excuse all that.
I hope they don't just let him off the hook for cooperation.
1) We're going to bring this punk back home and throw him in a federal "prison"
2) Celebrity liberals will protest and whine and whine and whine for his released. Campuses across the nation will feature even more whining for those of John Walker's ilk.
3) He will finally be released without a scratch and having served less time than a jaywalker.
4) These cause-head douchebag fundies and most Europeans will continue to act as if the U.S. is the rapist of the world.
And Zo, don't make me ****ing laugh with your assertion that you aren't quick to label things. You see the letters "US" together in capitals and you start looking for evil like some backward McCarthyist.
<strong>So either:
A. John claims he had no chance to defect and somehow video clip does not apply, and John was just hiding with his hands over his head while he waited for a Marine to get him out of there.
B. John was insane, phsycologists back him up.
C. He admits to having sided with the Taliban--a US enemy, and made no attempt to defect when he had the chance after realizing he could be commiting treason.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't forget:
D. The book/movie deal... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
United States.<hr></blockquote>
It is a wild stretch to consider that his motivation to go to Afghanistan and join the Taliban could be regarded as treason since the Taliban has never been considered an enemy of the US until 9-11. His treasonous status came about by the actions of others.
<strong>
It is a wild stretch to consider that his motivation to go to Afghanistan and join the Taliban could be regarded as treason since the Taliban has never been considered an enemy of the US until 9-11. His treasonous status came about by the actions of others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
JWL was captured with Taliban fighters. It's probable that there were al Qaeda present as well. Al Qaeda was involved in the killing of Americans prior to 9-11. He even told his father that the attack on the Cole was justified. And after 9-11 the Taliban clearly took al Qaeda's side against us. JWL didn't have a problem with this. He wasn't caught until a couple of months later. His treasonous status came about by his own actions.
The Taliban has never been on friendly terms with the United States. We have been pushing them to extradite bin Laden for years and we never recognized them as the official government of Afghanistan.
Also, he trained with Al Qaeda in Al Qaeda camps, which has been an enemy of the U.S. since the mid-1990s (if not earlier). Al Qaeda was responsible for over 30 American soldiers' deaths before 9/11.
If I were to go train with Hamas, would it be illogical to consider me an enemy to Israel?
<strong>
I said in my post that the Taliban had not been considered an enemy of the United States until 9-11. There is a very discernible difference between "an enemy" and being "not on friendly terms". Naturally we haven't been on overtly "friendly terms" as that would have been very bad PR; tactful silence was more the policy. About the only unfriendly gesture exhibited by the U.S. towards the Taliban prior to 9-11 was not to recognize their "government" (!) and not to staff the US embassy in Kabul. Also, there has been barely a peep from either the Clinton or Bush administrations re. the horrendous human rights abuses and the treatment of women in Afghanistan; awareness of this ghastly situation was raised mostly on internet newsletters and mass mailings. The official comment right up until 9-11 has always been 'no comment'. But human rights issues overseas has never been a concern of ours, that is what makes this current media hoopla and crocodile-tears exhibition of phoney human rights concerns such an outright farce. Then there is that issue of that $43 million for opium eradication (and that is not some fairytale conceived by Robert Scheer and trendy liberals; that deal was brokered via the U.N., with U.S. approval). Then there is the wholesale arming and funding of Islamic extremists via the CIA ($$billions) out of which the Taliban emerged. I have never said that the U.S. has been on "best buddies" terms with the Taliban...but an enemy? That is a big stretch.
[quote]We have been pushing them to extradite bin Laden for years and we never recognized them as the official government of Afghanistan.<hr></blockquote>
When the U.S. has a small but pesky enemy, or an enemy hosted by a 'rogue' nation, a common response of ours is to go in with bombs and air raids and (try to) nip it in the bud, such as what happened with Libya, or Granada, or Panama, etc. Extradition? puhhlease! Soft-soaping hardened terrorists is not the way the U.S. goes about its business. If al Qaeda was considered that great an enemy then there would have been a concerted effort to eradicate them. The Clinton administration had ample opportunity to get bin Laden, specially in Sudan, and they either blew it, or weren't that bothered.
[quote]Also, he trained with Al Qaeda in Al Qaeda camps, which has been an enemy of the U.S. since the mid-1990s (if not earlier).<hr></blockquote>
Many of those camps are in Saudi Arabia as well as Afghanistan. Bin Laden's greatest support comes from that nation, both financially and in personnel. Perhaps we are we more concerned with not offending the corrupt Saudi monarchy than in protecting the U.S people against further attacks?
[quote]Al Qaeda was responsible for over 30 American soldiers' deaths before 9/11. If I were to go train with Hamas, would it be illogical to consider me an enemy to Israel?<hr></blockquote>
Yes absolutely. It is all so uncomfortably inconsistent. Where was the response to the Cole attacks? Was that not also an unwarranted attack on American lives and property, an act of war?
[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
Whether or not I am married is irrelevant to the topic.
In a relationship, I very much appreciate being appreciated, but I don't expect anything from a man; expectation is a prison with very high walls, surrounded by minefields and armed guards. When a man in my life does something positive/good/ worthwhile, more especially when unexpected then that is when some magic and sparkle is allowed to escape the bonds of routine, (or expectation).
Re. men in world affairs, I cannot help but have expectations; my pragmatism and cynicism have tainted me. The nature of people who get into positions of power and leadership, and their corruptability is little to be optimistic about.It is mostly men who assume positions of power in politics and government, and most of them make a dog's dinner of it. If there were more balance between the yang/yin, masculine/feminine, etc in running the world, and less prevalence of machismo yahooism, and patriarchy...maybe there would be less opportunity for the likes of bin Laden (and a multitude of other rogues) to get where they are.
I have nothing against men, (far from it!) but I do have issues with men who behave like jerks, and foul things up for all.
Real men don't use violence.
<strong> Yes absolutely. It is all so uncomfortably inconsistent. Where was the response to the Cole attacks? Was that not also an unwarranted attack on American lives and property, an act of war?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Samantha,
I only quote your last line as it is similar to the rest of your post. Why did we not respond before to other attacks? Why The inconsistancy? I think a somewaht simplistic view is that they happened under a different administration. For example, the USS Cole happened under Clinton. No response there because the man was too busy trying to cover his own butt than to protect those of his military. The times and administration have changed. Also, the American people sadly did not see the overseas attacks to our military as a "real" thing. Sure, a few soldiers died, they knew they could when they signed up. Sad view, an dit really angered me then as it does now. But when NYC and the WTC are destroyed that is MUCH closer to home. Now that the citizens are riled the administration in power has license to grow a spine. About time they did, if only they had earlier...